Comments on: Iran Supplying Iraq Militias?

By: Rumplestiltskin

Rumplestiltskin — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:13:15 +0000

A man on the NewsHour said that ninety percent of our troops are being killed in Sunni-controlled regions, by Sunni bombs. Iran is not supplying the Sunni militias, rich, private individuals primarily living in Saudi Arabia are. If we are making such a big deal about Iran supplying Shia militias, why arenÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t we going after Saudi Arabia?

By: grognard

grognard — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:19:16 +0000

I agree with BenG, this is no surprise. We put them on the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œAxisÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? list and they did what any government would do when threatened, take action to spoil the plans of the enemy. Our being mired down in Iraq was, of course, the golden opportunity for them. We berate Maliki to suppress the militias, most notably Sadr, but now that Sadr has armed himself so well [and has representatives in ministries and parliament] that becomes a daunting task, if Maliki is willing to do it at all.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:27:37 +0000

Sadly, even more weapons used against our troops are those we failed to secure because of the absence of prewar planning. They are, in fact, American arms.

By: sleipner

sleipner — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:57:04 +0000

I just hope reality (or the new Democratic majority) intrudes enough into the fantasy world Bush and co live in to make them realize that America is Bestest hubris aside, Iran is an impossible target. We have neither the troops, the equipment, nor the will to have a prayer of doing anything in Iran other than screw up worse than we did in Iraq (and now Afghanistan).

By: BenG

BenG — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:30:20 +0000

I believe the administration truely had a pie in the sky attitude and that, after Iraq was thru partying in the streets from being liberated, Iran was next. There was no need to negotiate with the ‘axis of evil’, after all, ‘if they weren’t with us they were against us’ and that was reason enough for the next series of carpet bombs on some more good ‘hard targets’, as apposed to the soft ones in Afghanistan. Exaggerating? I don’t think so, just think back on all the catch phrases that came from our leaders. Now things are spinning so far out of control, Bush is the only one I hear talking about victory ‘if only we stay the course’. Doesn’t he realize how out of touch he sounds?

This new evidense of “Iranian support of terrorists in Iraq” is no great surprise. It’s not even stated correctly. These aren’t ‘terrorists’ being supported, they’re fellow Shia militia, the army of the cleric El-Sadre, who’s perhaps the most influential man in Iraq. We would have killed him long ago if allowed to. But our military was stopped by the Iraqi government. So who’s the “dead-enders” now?

By: Sean Aqui

Sean Aqui — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:46:31 +0000

Great minds and all that. As I argue back at the homestead, this doesn't really change anything. It's not necessarily a sign of Iranian hypocrisy or bad faith; it can be smart diplomacy to help your adversary dig the hole as deep as possible before offering to help them out of it. Especially when dealing with an administration as tin-eared as this one. I think we'll end up having no choice but to seek their cooperation, because their ability to stir up trouble in Iraq exceeds our ability to unilaterally tamp it down. And that means that our adventure in Iraq will produce an ironic outcome: strengthening one of the charter members of the "Axis of Evil."